I disagree. Seeing someone heal is direct observation of god himself rearranging the molecules so the person is healed.

No, it is an observation that the person recovered from their ailment. Your claim, that "god himself rearranged the molecules so the person was healed", has not been observed. For that matter, nobody actually observed the person's molecules being rearranged to begin with. Unless you want to try to argue that scientists had this person under an electron microscope so they could actually see the person's molecules? No? I didn't think so.

Quote from: Lukvance

I don't see what more direct observation or detection could there be? Do you have an idea?

And that's entirely the point. There is no "direct observation" of your god doing anything. What people are seeing is a person recovering from an ailment, and by a process of deduction, they are concluding that it was a god who did it. Deduction, not observation. Deduction does not prove that something is the case; it can only show that something may be the case.

Quote from: Lukvance

If you had read the book I suggested you to read, you would have realized that such records are opened and that scientist can fully and freely examine them. And wouldn't make another assumption, based on your lack of knowledge, that they are not available.

Again with the "you should have read the book I suggested" argument. Why didn't you just simply say that and cite where it came from in that book? That's how most people who actually do reports and presentations of things act, rather than telling other people they should go read a book if they want the relevant details.

And incidentally, how does that explain the situation where Sandu Edamarku was invited to come investigate the 'miracle' of a dripping crucifix in front of the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni in Mumbai, India, clearly demonstrated that there was a completely natural cause (a blocked sewage outflow pipe, which caused water to flow into the crucifix via capillary action and then to flow out through the nail hole in the leg of the Christ on the crucifix), was asked to recant, and when he refused, was charged with blasphemy by the Catholic Church in India. Granted, it's not an 'official' miracle sanctioned by the Vatican...

...but how about the case where an Italian scientist, Dr. Luigi Garlaschelli, was able to create a fake "weeping madonna" that worked so well that many onlookers thought the statue was actually weeping? Furthermore, he showed that the only "weeping madonna" recognized by the Catholic Church, a statue of the Virgin Mary in Siracusa, Sicily, was most likely explainable by the known scientific principle of capillary action. He did so by obtaining a copy of the bas-relief made by the same manufacturer and showing that it was made of thin, glazed plaster with a cavity behind the face. Yet he was unable to examine the original, and as far as I know, he was denied permission to. Doesn't bode well for the Vatican being willing to put an officially-declared miracle to the scientific test.

Quote from: Lukvance

That's why I love my HB example. It is something that we have proved to exist. But since I cannot use it because I will be deleted.

Yep, we've proven the Higgs boson to exist. But we did so by actually observing one. When has someone physically observed your god to confirm his existence?

Quote from: Lukvance

I will ask you again :Could you do one with anything that we know exist today only because of it's interaction with other things?

There is no such thing in science. If we have not physically observed something, it cannot be confirmed to exist. The Higgs boson was only confirmed to exist because someone actually observed one. We cannot confirm what actually goes on inside a black hole because we cannot observe it - there is no way to get information out of the black hole due to the immense strength of its gravity.

Do you understand? That is the reason we are not willing to accept miracles as evidence of your god's existence, because your god has not actually been observed by anyone, and therefore the true cause of said 'miracles' is not truly known.

No, your arguments are nonsense, Lukvance; I was referring to you, not him. You have done exactly what you accuse Graybeard of doing throughout this entire thread; the fake counterargument you described as 'silly' is exactly the same as many other counterarguments you have made in this thread. If you continue to deny it, I will be more than happy to go through this thread and pick out where you made nonsensical counterexamples by using word substitution. It will take me a little while to compile it, because this is a long thread, but it will be time well spent if only to show, for once and for all, just how bad your approach really is.

Keep bickering for definitions. If you think that's a good way to prove my claims wrong.As you said definition of certain terms are personal. Your red will never be my red. Your tree will never be drawn like my tree even if we are looking at the same tree. Each of us have his own definition of God. For me it is the GPB. For you it might be something else. It doesn't really matter in the case of proving his existence as the reality is that it is him that made the miracles. You want to wiggle and define God as such as it is not him, go ahead. Call a spoon a fork while you are at it. Nobody's forcing you to accept their definition.What is your point? Finding that no definition is correct so because there are no correct definition and God? Then conclude that because there is no correct definition of God there is no way to find clues about him? I mean at one point I have to be reasonable and admit that you exist. I can keep refusing to admit your existence based on your definition of yourself. But what's the point?I don't know the definition of "median" I'm pretty sure we can argue on the definition on what is human by arguing on each word used on that definition...I don't believe this would be a good counter argument. Do you?

You have attempted to use both a false analogy here and a red herring fallacy. I have asked you to provide a logically coherent definition of what the term "God" refers to; and your response was "the greatest possible being". I then responded that this definition is insufficient. It tells me absolutely NOTHING about what this alleged "God thing" actually IS (i.e. - what it is made of). Are you just going to continue to avoid the question?? The fact is, "GPB" doesn't say anything. It is a mere assumption. How do you know that "God" is "the greatest possible being"?? From where did you get this information?? It has not been demonstrated that "the greatest possible being" is anything more than FICTION (b/c mere possibility does not equate to "real" in the sense of this OP). More importantly, you went on to refer to "God" as a "him". But "him" was not in your original definition of "GPB". So you seem to be just making shit up as you go along and everyone can see it. Again, if you cannot coherently define what you are talking about when you use the term "God" then there can be no discussion about it. You already contradicted yourself by trying to say that "God" has no form and no "composition". So what is the "IT" that you are talking about?? Btw, you are flatly wrong regarding ordinary definitions. We can (and do) have coherent, rational, and useful definitions for things that have been demonstrated (such as apples and water). And even when people's definitions vary slightly on such things, they are not irrational and nonsensical like your attempted definition of a "God" thing. So you still have your work cut out for you to define what "IT" is that you are trying to talk about.

Next, you do not have a sufficient definition of "me" because you do not know me (although you probably can provide a sufficient definition of what "humans" generally are). You do not have sufficient information about me (like you would have for a family member for example) and therefore you are drawing a false comparison (yet again). "I" am independently demonstrable to all who wish to inquire. I can provide sufficient independently demonstrable evidence as well as a sufficient, useful, and logically coherent definition of who and what I am. I do not believe that you can do this with your alleged "God" thing (which is precisely one of the points of this OP). But if you disagree, then try again. Provide a sufficient, useful, and logically coherent definition of what "God" IS - not what it does or what is "possible" but what-it-is. If you won't do this then I'm just going to continue to ask WTF you are talking about when you try to use that term.

By the way, I'm going through all Lukvance's posts to list all of his unsupported assertions. He has around 340 posts in this thread.

I assume that this means you have a serious physical condition that prevents you from doing anything meaningful. Even watching reality TV. So sad.

If you really just need something to do, I have six cords of firewood that you could split for me. I'll feed you. Honest. Actually, I'm wondering how you'll be able to put a number on Luk's infinite number of unsupported assertions.

Does it not register with you that you believe that the events happening in Lourdes are down to god, but that you also believe that all events that are happening outside of Lourdes are down to god too? You have a compartmentalisation issue going on, where you suppress your belief that god is the cause of everything and then point to specific events as evidence for god being the cause of something. This is a fantastic example of special pleading.

It's something different. Don't you see the difference between one event and the universe(s)?I understand that proving that God interacted with reality when he created it only can be possible using logic. You guys need actual proof of his existence, not philosophical proof. That's why I chose to use miracle which are actual/physical events.

No, it isn't something different. All the events you could ever wish to portray as miracles exist within the universe - a universe whose existence you believe to be miraculous too. Based on what you believe there isn't one event within the universe that you could point to that wasn't a miracle. You've turned the term meaningless. Like I've said, and like you've ignored, you can't simultaneously believe that god is the "first cause" and that miracles occur. Pick one.

Also, which logic are you using to prove god interacted with reality when he created it - human logic or "god logic"?:

You want to define God … go ahead. … Nobody's forcing you to accept their definition.

You are doing a good job of trying to force your definition on people though, aren’t you?I warned you some time ago that your definition of “greatest” would not stand: Your god is in your mind only.

Apparently you missed the part where I define God as something else than "greatest" because if you read it you wouldn't say that "You are doing a good job of trying to force your definition on people"It's the definition gave by the dictionary. Here is another one :God : the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

I was very much anticipating this kind of response from you Luk. So tell us, what exactly is a "spirit"? What is a "soul"? What exactly is it made of? Can you demonstrate that for us? In the exact same manner as you are being challenged on the word "God", I am going to challenge you on the terms "spirit" and "soul". You need to coherently define what those words are referring to (i.e. - what those alleged "things" are made of or consist of) - and then demonstrate that such 'things' exist independently of human imagination. As for the other terms, I do not think that you actually want to stand by merely asserting that your word "God" is synonymous with emotions like "love", with concepts like "truth", or with biological terms like "life" - b/c those terms are not referring to anything "supernatural", nor do they make reference to any independent "being". So you see, you are very much in over your head here b/c you keep shifting your definition of the word "God" - as you realize that each attempt doesn't refer to what you WANT it to (i.e. - an invisible "person" - as is traditionally believed). And this is where the crux of your problem lies. You literally are not referring to anything when you attempt to say that "God" interacted with the world - b/c that word has no coherent meaning. It is purely non-sense and doesn't refer to anything. Indeed, you are already demonstrated this earlier by admitting that (for you) "God" has no form and no composition (i.e. - you are not talking about, or referring to, any-one-thing in particular). You are merely using the word "God" in place of your own ignorance.

-"Greatest possible being" tells us nothing about what this alleged "thing" actually IS-"Has no form and no composition" is pure nonsense, and self contradictory, b/c you just referred to it as a "thing" (and "things" have form)-Words like "Supernatural", "Spirit" and "Soul" are nonsense words just like "God" - referring to no-thing in particular (i.e. - no positive characteristics or attributes)-Words like "life", "love", and "truth" are not supernatural and therefore cannot be referring to what "IT" is that you are trying to talk about-Terms like "Supreme Being" presuppose that there is such a thing (but that needs to be demonstrated; not just ASSERTED) - What does "Supreme Being" even mean? If it refers to what this alleged "thing" does then you have not described what it IS. You need to describe (in rational terms) what this "thing" IS (i.e. - what it is allegedly made of).

Firstly, if there is no god, it can have no attributes: it cannot leave "clues".

Your counter argument is meaningless.

I think you mean, that you find it meaningless .

Quote

If there is no God it indeed cannot leave clues in the real world. He cannot interact with the world. We agree on that.

Good, where are the clues?

Quote

You invention of a God doesn't make sense. You could say the same thing about everything that exist.[irrelevancies deleted]

No. No, you can’t. You see, things that exist, exist as a finite set of properties: your god is unfalsifiable because you simply invent more properties for him – he is magic and magic people can do anything and be anything.

The Bronze Age Jews said that the properties of God were that he lived above the sky and was like us.

Today, new properties have been invented for him. These properties do not come from observations as nobody has ever seen him or reacted with him.

Surely, if god were inspiring the Bronze Age Jews and the people of today with his clear words, there should be no change?

Was he lying then, or is he lying now?

Lukvance,There is something severely wrong with you critical thinking skills.

1. We know Black Holes exist2. We observe Black Holes and note the properties of Black Holes3. We cannot invent further properties for Black Holes

However,

1. We do not know that a god of any sort exists2. We say there are gods without evidence3. We can say that a god has any property we want him to have and we can add properties to him at any time.

« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 06:35:34 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain

What "things" are we observing and how are we observing them? That matters. If someone suddenly gets sick, or suddenly gets healthy, people often attribute that to gods.

But that is not how black holes were hypothesized. The whole process was different. The idea of a black hole came about because people started to consider the larger meaning of the laws of physics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History

The math pointed to its existence. That is, black holes were predicted by the math. I am sorry to have to keep saying this to you. I am sorry you are too dense to understand the first time. If you still do not understand, let me put it this way:

In algebra, you have an equation:y=ax+b

It predicts that if you chart it, it will make a straight line. It will cross the Y axis at y=b. It will cross the x axis at x=-b/a. You may verify it by actually charting it.

The same is true in science. A law (mathematical equation) is made after much observation. Then it is used to make predictions. Those predictions are then checked. As long as the predictions are correct, the law stands.

The only prediction about god that is consistently correct is the one that says, "god will behave as if he does not exist."

10. so if anyone else says they can do magic, you tell them they are wrong because, in the story you invented, there is only one god and only he does magic.10. so if anyone else says they can do magic, you tell them they are wrong because, in the story you invented, there is only one black hole and only he does magic.

This doesn't even make sense.

You forgot two things. Ther first is where scientists were able to make predictions about black holes. Predictions about god are scant and rarely even able to be confirmed.

The purpose of switching "words" is underlining that the counter argument doesn't make sense. People who understand miracles -wich doen not include Graybeard at this point- can easily recognize just how ridiculous his argument actually sounds, because they understand how God theories are actually developed.

And once again you demonstrate that you have no real counter-argument, so you must simply substitute words to attempt to hijack someone else's. Or do you really think that I would not recognize my own words? Attempting to hijack arguments is not all you have done in this thread, but it is not an exaggeration to say that you have done it dozens of times, which is needlessly excessive and dulls its effect. Worse than that, you haven't even thought this through thoroughly enough. You claim that you do so to underline how the counter-argument doesn't make sense, and that is true. The counter-argument - your counter-argument - is what doesn't make sense.

What you are trying to do here is equivocation. The simplest form is if someone says, "if A then B", you replace A with C, and therefore say "if C then B". However, this only works if A and C are equivalent. If they are not, then the argument is fallacious, known as a false equivocation. So your attempt to equivocate miracles to science in the above sentence doesn't work because miracles are not even remotely close to science, by any stretch of the imagination. Science is about understanding how something works; miracles are about giving credit for something to your deity of choice.

Quote from: Lukvance

You see Theologians didn't follow his "#2, #4, #5, #6, #9, and #10" (or any of the other #s Graybeard put there) when they came up with the hypothesis of a God. They didn't make up the idea of God, they didn't claim it could do magic, they didn't make up a back story about God, they didn't claim God did magic things in this nonexistent back story he just dreamed up for his example, and they most certainly did not claim that there was only one God!

Continuing to make a false equivocation will not make it true, and I can easily show that your attempt to rebut fails miserably. You see, people did make up various and sundry gods - all you have to do is look at all the mutually exclusive concepts of gods that appear in various religions to recognize this. People do claim that their gods can do things by magic - no attempt to explain how those things are done, simply saying that the god did it through his powers. People do make up backstories involving gods and the universe, which is what creation myths are. Indeed, the very fact that there are so many underlines the fact that they can't all be true, and since they are all made the same way, the likelihood is that they are all false. People do claim their god does magic things in this backstory; for example, allow me to quote Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I see no explanation of how he created them, just simply a statement that he did, meaning that it was by his magic that he did so. Oh, by the way, neither Graybeard nor myself dreamed up Genesis. And Christianity is a monotheistic religion, therefore, it is axiomatic that they claim there is only one god and that no other gods exist.

This is what happens when you make a false equivocation; you leave yourself open to a devastating rebuttal which shows your false equivocation for what it truly is.

Quote from: Lukvance

When I used the HB it was for the same purpose. Underlining the silliness of your counter arguments.

The only thing you actually demonstrated is that you do not understand the Higgs boson well enough to use it in an argument. You certainly did not demonstrate that any counter-arguments were 'silly', except your own. You may of course continue to deny this and pretend that it is everyone else who is wrong while you are right, but it will not accomplish anything except to make your argument ever more ridiculous.

Quote from: Lukvance

I am NOT actually saying that the Black Hole is an invention.

You are talking with people who, for the most part, consider your god to be invented. That is what you needed to do first - show that your god was not invented. Until you do that, any attempt to equivocate your god with real things is going to fail. Miserably. And in case you still haven't figured this out, pointing to supposed miracles is not accomplishing the task of showing that your god is not invented. This is because the process your church uses to identify a supposed miracle relies on theological reasoning at the end, which is essentially philosophy. Didn't you just say that you recognized that philosophical arguments (such as the Ontological Argument, the "greatest possible being") wouldn't be sufficient? The same applies to anything else that uses philosophical arguments to 'prove' it, such as miracles.

Quote from: Lukvance

I am NOT actually saying that the HB is whatever silly argument brought by you who forced me to use this to show how ridicule the argument is!

And so far, you haven't said anything about what the Higgs boson actually is. In fact, you've been asked by several people, myself included, to do this, and you've refused to. This is why you've been forbidden to use it in examples - because your attempts to ridicule other people's arguments by using it have only made your own argument look ridiculous, and by extension have made your knowledge of the Higgs boson look equally ridiculous.

I have asked you to provide a logically coherent definition of what the term "God" refers to; and your response was "the greatest possible being".

Have you read Reply #1005? I think that you want to stick with the GPB definition because it allows you to disagree with me. That's ok.I gave you the universal definition of God. The one accepted by the dictionary hence the rest of the world. If you want to disagree with the dictionary go ahead. But as long as you are asking for a definition, I gave it to you.What now?

So your attempt to equivocate miracles to science in the above sentence doesn't work because miracles are not even remotely close to science, by any stretch of the imagination. Science is about understanding how something works; miracles are about giving credit for something to your deity of choice.

I'd take it one step further: Resorting to weasel-words like "miracles" is the equivalent of shoving science out of the way before it has finished investigating, for the express purpose of using a god as the "explanation."

When you say that something is a miracle you explain nothing, nothing at all. It doesn't say how something happened, and doesn't admit that there could be a non-supernatural explanation; it cuts off all debate on the matter and slams the book closed. It robs medical research of an opportunity to duplicate a potential cure and save other people.

Of course, medical research doesn't fill the RCC's coffers nearly as fast as a declaration that St. Colonia of Rectum cured someone's diarrhea. Big money in them there relics.

No, it isn't something different. All the events you could ever wish to portray as miracles exist within the universe - a universe whose existence you believe to be miraculous too. Based on what you believe there isn't one event within the universe that you could point to that wasn't a miracle.

being a miracle and being a consequence of a miracle are 2 different things. No? I believe that most event in the universe are consequences of the one event when it was created.

You want to define God … go ahead. … Nobody's forcing you to accept their definition.

You are doing a good job of trying to force your definition on people though, aren’t you?I warned you some time ago that your definition of “greatest” would not stand: Your god is in your mind only.

Apparently you missed the part where I define God as something else than "greatest" because if you read it you wouldn't say that "You are doing a good job of trying to force your definition on people"It's the definition gave by the dictionary. Here is another one :God : the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

I was very much anticipating this kind of response from you Luk. So tell us, what exactly is a "spirit"? What is a "soul"? What exactly is it made of? Can you demonstrate that for us? In the exact same manner as you are being challenged on the word "God", I am going to challenge you on the terms "spirit" and "soul". You need to coherently define what those words are referring to (i.e. - what those alleged "things" are made of or consist of) - and then demonstrate that such 'things' exist independently of human imagination. As for the other terms, I do not think that you actually want to stand by merely asserting that your word "God" is synonymous with emotions like "love", with concepts like "truth", or with biological terms like "life" - b/c those terms are not referring to anything "supernatural", nor do they make reference to any independent "being". So you see, you are very much in over your head here b/c you keep shifting your definition of the word "God" - as you realize that each attempt doesn't refer to what you WANT it to (i.e. - an invisible "person" - as is traditionally believed). And this is where the crux of your problem lies. You literally are not referring to anything when you attempt to say that "God" interacted with the world - b/c that word has no coherent meaning. It is purely non-sense and doesn't refer to anything. Indeed, you are already demonstrated this earlier by admitting that (for you) "God" has no form and no composition (i.e. - you are not talking about, or referring to, any-one-thing in particular). You are merely using the word "God" in place of your own ignorance.

-"Greatest possible being" tells us nothing about what this alleged "thing" actually IS-"Has no form and no composition" is pure nonsense, and self contradictory, b/c you just referred to it as a "thing" (and "things" have form)-Words like "Supernatural", "Spirit" and "Soul" are nonsense words just like "God" - referring to no-thing in particular (i.e. - no positive characteristics or attributes)-Words like "life", "love", and "truth" are not supernatural and therefore cannot be referring to what "IT" is that you are trying to talk about-Terms like "Supreme Being" presuppose that there is such a thing (but that needs to be demonstrated; not just ASSERTED) - What does "Supreme Being" even mean? If it refers to what this alleged "thing" does then you have not described what it IS. You need to describe (in rational terms) what this "thing" IS (i.e. - what it is allegedly made of).

You can pick up a dictionary. I agree with their definition of these words.Now what?

Lukvance,There is something severely wrong with you critical thinking skills.1. We know Black Holes exist2. We observe Black Holes and note the properties of Black Holes3. We cannot invent further properties for Black HolesHowever,1. We do not know that a god of any sort exists2. We say there are gods without evidence3. We can say that a god has any property we want him to have and we can add properties to him at any time.

Again you don't make sense (to me)1. We do know that a god exists there are miracles to prove that.2. We say there are gods with evidence (miracles for physical evidence).3. We cannot say that a god has any property we want him to have. Of course we can add/discover him new properties at any time.

Here is where you sound the silliest to meOn rule 3 you say "We cannot invent further properties for Black Holes" when Stephen Hawkins just "discovered just a few months ago new properties for Black holes.[1]I agree he did not "invent" them. The same way we do not "invent" properties for God.

1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain

What "things" are we observing and how are we observing them? That matters. If someone suddenly gets sick, or suddenly gets healthy, people often attribute that to gods.

That is not that simple. These healings have been predicted. Just like the black holes. "If someone suddenly "observe" light being absorbed by "something" in space people often attribute that to Black holes." Same thing than with Graybeard, your phrase does not make sense as an argument (or counter argument) Even if there is a meaning in English.

3. You use the god to explain things you cannot understand. 3. You use the Black hole to explain things you cannot understand.

this is wrong. Black holes did not explain anything. They are the things that are not fully understood.

Well that my friend is something we should discuss. Because the fact that light is "bent" or does not "pass through" some part of space was not understood before black holes. Black holes effectively explained why this light acted that way.However, we agree on the fact that God and Black holes are "things" that are not fully understood.

4. You say the god can do magic!4. You say the Black hole can do magic!

This is wrong. Nobody says black holes can do magic. The math very specifically says what black holes can do, and none of it is magic.

I know!Nobody says God can do magic. The philosophy very specifically says what God can do, and none of it is magic...to the eyes of the people with sufficient knowledge. Any idiot could find that black holes do magic.

5. You invent a story about the god and call it "The Bible"5. You invent a story about the black hole and call it "What is a black hole?"

This is wrong. The story is not invented. It is dictated by the math and by observation.

I know! I keep telling you that Graybeard's arguments are silly arguments they are here for a joke or he just lack some basic knowledge about God. I believe that for this point you didn't get the parallel I was making maybe I should have called the book "What is a black hole? for kids" in the book you find stories (not actual stories) that explain what is a black hole to children.

This is wrong. Prove it. You can follow the link about the papers written by theologians and find in their papers the predictions about God then prove to us why they are "scant and rarely even able to be confirmed".

And how, pray tell, is it so impossible? It would not be especially difficult to set up a scientific experiment at Lourdes where scientists took a representative sample of the people who travel there and put them under close examination, including examining them rigorously on a regular schedule, in order to catch them healing under the equivalent of a microscope. It would be lengthy and costly, but it would be doable, and thus your claim that it would be impossible is excessively exaggerated.

Quote from: Lukvance

Now that you realize that you cannot have most direct proof than someone healing right before your eyes you say "hey! no! my eyes are not enough we need an electron microscope!"

That is exactly the point and the problem. You cannot point to someone healing right in front of your eyes and say, "Hey, that's God doing it! Praise be to God!" The human eye is anything but a precision instrument; it can only observe a very narrow slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, it is possible to fool the eyes with patterns or colors to alter what the brain perceives, and the brain actively seeks patterns for things, even things that have no patterns (this is how people can see things like animals and shapes in clouds). The mere fact that you can provide evidence no more precise than "people saw it happen" is a serious problem for your position.

Quote from: Lukvance

as it was so well said about Zola, I can clearly conclude about yourself thatYour attitude is one of mindless bigotry. It is a striking example of the degree to which perversity of the will can blind the intellect.

I am reporting this accusation of "mindless bigotry" to the forum moderators. You are making this accusation because I am skeptical of your so-called "evidence", and instead of providing more precise evidence that could answer my skepticism, you claim it is impossible and call me a mindless bigot. I am not bigoted towards you - I have tolerated you and your opinions quite well, all things considered. Indeed, I am one of the most patient, tolerant people on this forum, as evidenced by the fact that I am usually willing to keep talking to theists long after most people have lost patience with them.

Quote from: Lukvance

Yep, basically you don't know shit. You just know that you have to oppose what is in front of you. If not, you would be wrong and that can never happen!

Actually, I have been wrong on numerous occasions. When someone shows that I am, I admit it and modify my position accordingly. It's happened several times on this forum, even. You might want to contrast that with your own behavior. Have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything on this forum? I don't recall a single instance, but I haven't read all of your posts.

Quote from: Lukvance

I TOLD YOU THE RELEVANT DETAILS you didn't want to trust me so I gave you a link so you could see by yourself. YOU don't want to bother reading and blame the other for YOUR lack of knowledge.

It's clear you misunderstood the point of the question I asked, and proceeded to go off on a strawman tangent, as I will demonstrate below.

if the Vatican opened its records and allowed scientists to fully and freely examine everything it considered a miracle

YOU should not have simply say that and should have cite where it (your supposed knowledge that the Vatican do not open its records to scientists) came from because "That's how most people who actually do reports and presentations of things act"

Here is what I actually said: "So you're saying that if the Vatican opened its records and allowed scientists to fully and freely examine everything it considered a miracle, that they could not and surely would not be able to explain them? Not ever?"

I was not claiming that the Vatican had never opened its records to scientists. I was responding to a claim you made:

I am saying that Science cannot and will surely not explain miracles recognized by the Vatican.

A claim which can only be true if scientists are not ever allowed to examine Vatican records. Yet you said that the Vatican does allow scientists to examine its records. Which means it is entirely possible that scientists will be able to provide scientific explanations for events that the Vatican currently considers miracles.

Quote from: Lukvance

Ps : My source is not the book it's the guy I spoke to the person who was more knowledgeable than me about miracles because it was his life work.

So even if I had read this book of yours, it would not have explained that the Vatican opens its records to scientists? Or did you perhaps mean something else instead?

...but how about the case where an Italian scientist, Dr. Luigi Garlaschelli, was able to create a fake "weeping madonna" that worked so well that many onlookers thought the statue was actually weeping? Furthermore, he showed that the only "weeping madonna" recognized by the Catholic Church, a statue of the Virgin Mary in Siracusa, Sicily, was most likely explainable by the known scientific principle of capillary action. He did so by obtaining a copy of the bas-relief made by the same manufacturer and showing that it was made of thin, glazed plaster with a cavity behind the face. Yet he was unable to examine the original, and as far as I know, he was denied permission to. Doesn't bode well for the Vatican being willing to put an officially-declared miracle to the scientific test.

Quote from: Lukvance

There was this guy who said that someone simply splashed water on the face "while no one was watching". He tested his theory in front of many people and they were all fooled. Yet he was unable to examine the original. Do you know why?

Dr. Garlaschelli did not make that claim; I suggest you read up about what he did actually say and do before responding again.

Quote from: Lukvance

Come On!Who's the one who doesn't know what he is talking about? Just to make sure, I read again the article I shared with you when it was first asked from me to show you what I know about the HB. Here is what is written :

"Because the Higgs boson decays very quickly, particle detectors cannot detect it directly. Instead the detectors register all the decay products (the decay signature) and from the data the decay process is reconstructed"

Actually, I do know what I am talking about. However, that does not prevent me from being mistaken occasionally, or having to correct myself when I am. I missed that when I originally read the Smithsonian article about the Higgs boson, and it was not often mentioned in other things I used as references.

Quote from: Lukvance

Do you understand me now?

I still do not agree with your assertion that you can equate the Higgs boson with your god. For one thing, the Higgs boson was predicted to have very specific decay products, that would point to it and nothing else. These miracles that you claim were from your god are not specific, and they do not point to your god and nothing else. Not even the theological rationales that your church uses can make a supposed miracle do that, for the simple reason that those theological rationales are philosophical in nature. Philosophy by itself cannot prove that something exists; it cannot even prove that something doesn't exist.

The procedure your church goes through is specifically designed to find only healings which cannot be explained by science, and then to use carefully crafted theological rationales to 'prove' that it is a miracle from your god. They may have satisfied their own standards, but it can in no way be considered scientifically proven. And that is why you have made no headway since you brought up the whole miracle business - not because people are 'mindlessly' rejecting your statements, but because we do not accept that your church's conclusions - that X is a miracle, but Z isn't, because of theological considerations - are scientific.

I have asked you to provide a logically coherent definition of what the term "God" refers to; and your response was "the greatest possible being".

Have you read Reply #1005? I think that you want to stick with the GPB definition because it allows you to disagree with me. That's ok.I gave you the universal definition of God. The one accepted by the dictionary hence the rest of the world. If you want to disagree with the dictionary go ahead. But as long as you are asking for a definition, I gave it to you.What now?

Just because something is in the dictionary does not mean that it is conclusive, rational, coherent, or referring to anything independently real (especially when you posted multiple definitions which did not answer the question). And I rebutted your copy/paste definitions of which you did not respond. How about you try again and actually respond to my posts this time.

You can pick up a dictionary. I agree with their definition of these words.Now what?

I did not give a definition of all of those words. I rebutted your attempt to define the word "God" as being synonymous with those words, and those attempted descriptions. It is now up to you to provide a coherent definition of what "IT" is that you are attempting to refer to when you use that term. What exactly is the "IT" that you are talking about? What is this alleged "God" made up of? Please provide a positive definition of what "it" actually IS (not what is "possible", not what it is "not", but what it "IS" in logically coherent and meaningful terms).

Quote from: Lukvance

as it was so well said about Zola, I can clearly conclude about yourself thatYour attitude is one of mindless bigotry. It is a striking example of the degree to which perversity of the will can blind the intellect.

You should say this to yourself in the mirror every-single-day until you accept the truth of it about your own mental state (belief in superstition by force of will and nothing more).

1. We do know that a god exists there are miracles to prove that.2. We say there are gods with evidence (miracles for physical evidence).

When an unexplained event occurs, logically, you cannot say "God did it." An unexplained event is one for which there is NO immediate explanation. You say "God did it by magic.", I say "Harry Potter did it by magic."

You, without any evidence at all, attribute magic to God. This is why miracles are not accepted, by those with critical thinking skills, as evidence of God.

Quote

3. We cannot say that a god has any property we want him to have. Of course we can add/discover him new properties at any time.

Tell that to Christians - they will call you a liar.

Would the greatest possible being male the greatest possible soufflé? Of course He would - another attribute for God.

If God designed a domestic plumbing system, would it be the best plumbing system ever? Of course it would - another attribute for God.

Quote

Here is where you sound the silliest to me

I am beginning to notice that you have few critical thinking skills

Quote

On rule 3 you say "We cannot invent further properties for Black Holes" when Stephen Hawkins just "discovered just a few months ago new properties for Black holes.

In English there is a difference between "discover" and "invent."

Quote

The same way we do not "invent" properties for God.

But Christianity, through the pope, invented many attributes for God. Unlike Hawkins, who had new information and can discover things, since the Bible, there has been no "new information" about God.

So Hawkins gets new information and he may conclude a new attribute.

Since the Bible, what new information has there been about God?

I will ask again:The people of the Old Testament believed God was like a man: we can see this in the Garden of Eden myth. In the New Testament, people believed that Heaven was a real place just above the sky.

Today, Christians do not believe either of these things. Where has the new information come from to justify a new attribute?

Lukvance,Please think about what you are saying. There are better arguments you can use. You need to let go of "miracles as proof" - they are not. You need to let go of science that you do not understand. You need to study more critical thinking. You have found a few philosophical ideas and have been convinced. Read Wittgenstein or A.J. Ayres, or Russell.

Lukvance,There is something severely wrong with you critical thinking skills.1. We know Black Holes exist2. We observe Black Holes and note the properties of Black Holes3. We cannot invent further properties for Black HolesHowever,1. We do not know that a god of any sort exists2. We say there are gods without evidence3. We can say that a god has any property we want him to have and we can add properties to him at any time.

Again you don't make sense (to me)1. We do know that a god exists there are miracles to prove that.2. We say there are gods with evidence (miracles for physical evidence).3. We cannot say that a god has any property we want him to have. Of course we can add/discover him new properties at any time.

Here is where you sound the silliest to meOn rule 3 you say "We cannot invent further properties for Black Holes" when Stephen Hawkins just "discovered just a few months ago new properties for Black holes.[1]I agree he did not "invent" them. The same way we do not "invent" properties for God.

Since you have already attempted to define "miracles" as "God interacting with the world" you cannot say that "miracles" prove God b/c you are begging the question (viciously circular argument - which is a logical fallacy). You need to actually DEMONSTRATE that "God interacts in the world".

YOUR CLAIMS THAT HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF:

-God exists as a separate entity-Miracles are "God interacting with the world"-"God interacting with the world" happens-God is "the greatest possible being"-God is "supernatural", "spirit", and/or "soul"

You have not demonstrated any of these claims and therefore you cannot attempt to use one claim to support the other claim.

1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain

What "things" are we observing and how are we observing them? That matters. If someone suddenly gets sick, or suddenly gets healthy, people often attribute that to gods.

That is not that simple. These healings have been predicted. Just like the black holes. "If someone suddenly "observe" light being absorbed by "something" in space people often attribute that to Black holes." Same thing than with Graybeard, your phrase does not make sense as an argument (or counter argument) Even if there is a meaning in English.

The only prediction about god that is consistently correct is the one that says, "god will behave as if he does not exist."

Or, maybe, the one that says "God will prove his existence to humans by directly act on their world" let's keep our options open

Keeping our "options open" is not the same thing as buying into irrational nonsense based upon presuppositions and confirmation bias. Now, before you can make a prediction you must first be able to describe the thing that you are going to predict. Here is a quote from UC Berkeley on the subject:

Quote

Prediction: In everyday language, prediction generally refers to something that a fortune teller makes about the future. In science, the term prediction generally means "what we would expect to happen or what we would expect to observe if this idea were accurate." Sometimes, these scientific predictions have nothing at all to do with the future. For example, scientists have hypothesized that a huge asteroid struck the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, flinging off debris that formed the moon. If this idea were true, we would predict that the moon today would have a similar composition to that of the Earth's crust 4.5 billion years ago — a prediction which does seem to be accurate. This hypothesis deals with the deep history of our solar system and yet it involves predictions — in the scientific sense of the word. Ironically, scientific predictions often have to do with past events. In this website, we've tried to reduce confusion by using the words expect and expectation instead of predict and prediction. To learn more, visit Predicting the past in our section on the core of science.

If your alleged "prediction" does not specify one specific thing (while eliminating other possibilities that could be concluded from the same conclusion; that is to say if your "prediction" is vague) then it is useless in determining what caused the said event to happen. Remember those useless "no form no composition" attempts your tried? For example, I could claim to have magic powers and I could make a "prediction" that every time I order a meal at a restaurant, and they bring it to me, my prediction has been confirmed! It must mean that I have magic powers, right? By your completely failed thinking this would be the conclusion you would have to accept. And yet we all know that that kind of a "prediction" is not valid b/c the conclusion that is being drawn from the prediction is not justified by the evidence (and this is b/c there could be any number of explanations to explain why said event happened). And via Occam's Razor we should go with the explanation that houses the least amount of assumptions and the most amount of experiential evidence to support said specific and coherent conclusion.

Hey jamielhlers, first of all, I'm sorry. I let myself just a bit much on my precedent reply. I saw red when you made a mistake that I consider huge according the *defended word* since it was one of the reason why I took it as an example to begin with.People like Graybeard had since waged a baseless war against me just because people misunderstood how I used the example.So imagine my surprise when I read such things and they stick...Anyway, I'm sorry.

And how, pray tell, is it so impossible? It would not be especially difficult to set up a scientific experiment at Lourdes where scientists took a representative sample of the people who travel there and put them under close examination, including examining them rigorously on a regular schedule, in order to catch them healing under the equivalent of a microscope. It would be lengthy and costly, but it would be doable, and thus your claim that it would be impossible is excessively exaggerated.

I know that it is doable NOW. But this technology wasn't always available. So it is impossible to have measured them using such techniques.You have to understand something, miracles happened, they have been happening for more than 2000 years.Each and everyone of them have been under scrutiny since it happened. People like you who do not want them to be proof of the existence of God have been

Now that you realize that you cannot have most direct proof than someone healing right before your eyes you say "hey! no! my eyes are not enough we need an electron microscope!"

That is exactly the point and the problem. You cannot point to someone healing right in front of your eyes and say, "Hey, that's God doing it! Praise be to God!" The human eye is anything but a precision instrument; it can only observe a very narrow slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, it is possible to fool the eyes with patterns or colors to alter what the brain perceives, and the brain actively seeks patterns for things, even things that have no patterns (this is how people can see things like animals and shapes in clouds). The mere fact that you can provide evidence no more precise than "people saw it happen" is a serious problem for your position.

I know that only seeing it is not enough evidence, even if most of the time it is! (Example : eyewitness in a murder case)Could you imagine that you watch your kid get shot right before your eyes and the law-keeper tells you : "No that is not enough proof. You should have taken a picture or, better, a movie. I have to let the man go" Could you imagine how you would have felt?That's how I feel when you tell me "you should have use a microscope!"Fortunately as I explained to you before, God left enough clues so that we can be sure that he was the one responsible.

Have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything on this forum? I don't recall a single instance, but I haven't read all of your posts.

Yes, yes, in this discussion twice. Once when the physical proofs of the existence of ghost was presented and when the scientific method about gravity was presented.My mistake was that I thought the philosophical proof was enough when it clearly wasn't. I did not know any other proof at this moment. I discovered the possibility to present miracle as a physical proof because of the scientific method presented by Graybeard.

if the Vatican opened its records and allowed scientists to fully and freely examine everything it considered a miracle

YOU should not have simply say that and should have cite where it (your supposed knowledge that the Vatican do not open its records to scientists) came from because "That's how most people who actually do reports and presentations of things act"

Here is what I actually said: "So you're saying that if the Vatican opened its records and allowed scientists to fully and freely examine everything it considered a miracle, that they could not and surely would not be able to explain them? Not ever?"I was not claiming that the Vatican had never opened its records to scientists. I was responding to a claim you made:

I am saying that Science cannot and will surely not explain miracles recognized by the Vatican.

A claim which can only be true if scientists are not ever allowed to examine Vatican records. Yet you said that the Vatican does allow scientists to examine its records. Which means it is entirely possible that scientists will be able to provide scientific explanations for events that the Vatican currently considers miracles.

Ok maybe my use of "surely" did not leave enough room for the possibility for scientists to find a different solution than God. But that what was intended when I wrote it. I do not know what the future holds. I won't make any 100% sure prediction about it.

So even if I had read this book of yours, it would not have explained that the Vatican opens its records to scientists? Or did you perhaps mean something else instead?

I meant something else. The book confirm what the expert told me. That the Vatican open its records to scientists and doctors and anyone that is curious about them. The Vatican library is exactly that, a library.

There was this guy who said that someone simply splashed water on the face "while no one was watching". He tested his theory in front of many people and they were all fooled. Yet he was unable to examine the original. Do you know why?

Dr. Garlaschelli did not make that claim; I suggest you read up about what he did actually say and do before responding again.

Yes I know! I was not talking about Dr. Garlaschelli. I was talking about "someone" the point being that it is not because you can reproduce something that the real thing happened exactly the same way you reproduced it. Access to the weeping Mary should be restricted against those charlatan. I'm pretty sure that if you look at the research made before this was declared a miracle, researchers looked for this particular kind of "trick" and proved that it was not possible in this case with the element at the disposition at the time.

I still do not agree with your assertion that you can equate the Higgs boson with your god.

Ok for the thousand time. It is not the *forbidden word* and God that I equate. I use the *forbidden word* as an example to show how ridiculous/silly/wrong some counter-arguments are or at least look to me.

Not even the theological rationales that your church uses can make a supposed miracle do that, for the simple reason that those theological rationales are philosophical in nature. Philosophy by itself cannot prove that something exists; it cannot even prove that something doesn't exist.

Alright now, another claim "theological rationales are philosophical in nature". Are we talking about the same "rationales"? I mean there are more than one right? are they all philosophical? If so, could you back that claim?

The procedure your church goes through is specifically designed to find only healings which cannot be explained by science, and then to use carefully crafted theological rationales to 'prove' that it is a miracle from your god. They may have satisfied their own standards, but it can in no way be considered scientifically proven. And that is why you have made no headway since you brought up the whole miracle business - not because people are 'mindlessly' rejecting your statements, but because we do not accept that your church's conclusions - that X is a miracle, but Z isn't, because of theological considerations - are scientific.

That's because you refuse to see Theology as a science. Or you think that only what is scientific is real.Theology according to the dictionary is "the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to and influence upon other beings"Basically how the idea of you offering a rose can be made real.

I gave you the universal definition of God. The one accepted by the dictionary hence the rest of the world. If you want to disagree with the dictionary go ahead. But as long as you are asking for a definition, I gave it to you.What now?

Just because something is in the dictionary does not mean that it is conclusive, rational, coherent, or referring to anything independently real (especially when you posted multiple definitions which did not answer the question). And I rebutted your copy/paste definitions of which you did not respond. How about you try again and actually respond to my posts this time.

You want me to respond to your disagreement with the definition given by the dictionary!? Are you crazy?There is no way some little people like you can rebut the definition of the dictionary. If I was to allow that as a proper counter argument we would be in anarchy mode. No more order. The dictionary is wrong!

You are not arguing with me anymore, you are arguing with the dictionary. Come back to us.Miracles are the physical proof of the existence of God.What say you?

I gave you the universal definition of God. The one accepted by the dictionary hence the rest of the world. If you want to disagree with the dictionary go ahead. But as long as you are asking for a definition, I gave it to you.What now?

Just because something is in the dictionary does not mean that it is conclusive, rational, coherent, or referring to anything independently real (especially when you posted multiple definitions which did not answer the question). And I rebutted your copy/paste definitions of which you did not respond. How about you try again and actually respond to my posts this time.

You want me to respond to your disagreement with the definition given by the dictionary!? Are you crazy?There is no way some little people like you can rebut the definition of the dictionary. If I was to allow that as a proper counter argument we would be in anarchy mode. No more order. The dictionary is wrong!

You are not arguing with me anymore, you are arguing with the dictionary. Come back to us.Miracles are the physical proof of the existence of God.What say you?

-Circular reasoning and avoiding the rebuttals I have presented. FAIL.

For some strange reason you just can't get it through your thick skull that "miracles" (i.e. - "God interacting with the world") has not been demonstrated - because you have not proved that a "God" (whatever that word means) is real; independent of human imagination. So since you have neither demonstrated a coherent definition of what you are attempting to refer to when you use that term and you have not demonstrated that a "God" thing is even real (outside human imagination) then you cannot say that "IT" interacted with anything - b/c you have not presented the "IT" that supposedly did the interacting. All you have (still) is an argument from ignorance mixed with an attempt to equate correlation to causation.

Furthermore, the dictionary merely records definitions that are given by PEOPLE. It evolves over time. That is why there are so many variances within them. I'm sorry that you have decided to take your copy/paste multi-definitions from the dictionary as "gospel" (just like you have done with the bible) but it still doesn't help your case. I have responded to your use of conflicting and insufficient definitions for the term "God". If you refuse to respond directly to my rebuttals then I will assume that you cannot.

Last, if you had actually taken the time to study the history of thought you would have already realized that philosophical discussion about the meanings and references of terms is prior to dictionaries. The very meanings and references of terms are often analyzed, questioned, and disputed in philosophy (so that we can have more precision with our language and determine whether or not a specific attempted definition is rational, coherent, useful, meaningful, accurate, and consistent). If all your going to do is avoid the problems that have been presented than why are you here - just to preach?

God : the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.This definition might no suit you for any number of reason. There is a reason why we have dictionaries and yes discussions existed before it. I don't know why you are so much against the dictionary. It's an amazing tool to help us evolve, it's like, because you cannot find any counter argument that stick against the proof given by you, you decide to attack the words, going even against the dictionary, bringing the discussion to a level more appropriate for you, the pre-dictionnary level, where the stronger was always right.If, by using that definition above, you do not have any idea of what "it" is then use your brain and create your own definition.

Lukvance, your use of the dictionary only adds confusion, because several of the definitions contradict your previous description of god. You keep expanding the definition of god until it includes the entire universe, including suicide bombers, serial rapists, Satan, Hitler and the ebola virus. I don't think you are trying to say that face-eating bacteria, and the militants who kidnapped those schoolgirls in Africa are god. Or are you? You have said that evil leads to good. You are so all over the place it is hard to tell.

But, I think you have given us a new sig option, Lukvance:

"...you think that only what is scientific is real."

Well, yeah.

If it works and is real, it is scientific. If it is not scientific, then it is not real and it does not work. It is made up, imaginary, useless foolishness. As Richard Dawkins said, "Science works, beeyatches." And religion does not. That is why people invented science.

BTW, you have said that miracles are scientific, because they can be predicted. Do tell, how can anyone predict a miracle healing? Which patients who arrives at Lourdes will be miraculously healed? If that could be predicted in advance, wouldn't it be better if the rest of the several million yearly visitors just saved their money and stayed home?

That is something you still have not addressed; since, as you have attested, godly miracles are as unlikely as a Timex watch on a prosperity gospel minister. Miracles are definitely not medical treatments, so, the vast majority of the pilgrims to holy sites would actually be much healthier if they stayed home. And if they are contagious, they would also make the rest of the visitors healthier by staying home.

So, if over 99% of people who go to Lourdes will not get a miracle healing, why would any church approve of large groups of very sick people traveling there in search of a miracle healing? If indeed, anyone can predict a miracle healing, please tell everyone in advance so only the people who are going to get healed will spend their time and money going to Lourdes.

Otherwise the whole Lourdes thing starts to look, feel and smell like a scam preying on the weak, desperate and vulnerable.

As a kid who grew up around con artistry, I have very little sympathy for bastards who rip off the sick and elderly. So, Lukvance, convince me that the Catholic Church is not running a con on people by encouraging them to go to Lourdes, knowing that hardly anyone will ever get miraculously healed.

So, if over 99% of people who go to Lourdes will not get a miracle healing, why would any church approve of large groups of very sick people traveling there in search of a miracle healing?

That's because you don't count those spiritual healing. You only focus on the physical healing. I have heard many testimony of people and have lived one myself. The spiritual miracle is an experience of God that you live and afterwards you have no more doubts whatsoever of his existence. I can safely say that God "touched" me spiritually when I was 24. But these things don't count because you cannot see or test or touch or feel them yourself. You must rely on testimony.

Lukvance, convince me that the Catholic Church is not running a con on people by encouraging them to go to Lourdes, knowing that hardly anyone will ever get miraculously healed.

You have as much chance to get miraculously healed at your place than by going to Lourdes. But as you know, when you put some effort into something you generally receive something else in return.I have a friend who is walking "The Camino de Santiago" because he wanted to live his faith more fully. I have another one who came back from that walk and testify to us that it was a lifetime experiment, that it changed his life. So why should people go to Lourdes? To change their lives for the better, to travel! Not to get physically healed.Here is a website that might help you understand : http://www.lourdesvolunteers.org/go_to_lourdes/why.html

luk has no moral problem with terminally suffering people spending their money to go to Lourdes and putting themselves at great due to travel in their condition and the risk to others they may spread sickness to just to get a completely random one In a godzillion chance of a miraculous healing. they have the exact same odds by staying at home and better odds staying in medical care.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Whenever folks cannot prove a physical healing scientifically, they start talking about "spiritual" healing. Something even more difficult to document than the medical miracles I thought we were discussing.

I already mentioned that studies have shown that the supposed "spiritual" component of healing happens whether a person engages in religious activities or secular support groups, friends, family, hobbies, etc. So, no, gods are not involved there, either.

Lukvance, we were talking abut people being cured of cancer, paralyzed hands, and so on, were we not? Why did you switch to the topic of "spiritual healing"?